Asynchronous deterministic rendezvous in graphs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two mobile agents (robots) having distinct labels and located in nodes of an unknown anonymous connected graph, have to meet. We consider the asynchronous version of this well-studied rendezvous problem and we seek fast deterministic algorithms for it. Since in the asynchronous setting meeting at a node, which is normally required in rendezvous, is in general impossible, we relax the demand by allowing meeting of the agents inside an edge as well. The measure of performance of a rendezvous algorithm is its cost: for a given initial location of agents in a graph, this is the number of edge traversals of both agents until rendezvous is achieved. If agents are initially situated at a distance D in an infinite line, we show a rendezvous algorithm with cost O(D|Lmin | 2) when D is known and O((D + |Lmax|) 3) if D is unknown, where |Lmin | and |Lmax | are the lengths of the shorter and longer label of the agents, respectively. These results still hold for the case of the ring of unknown size but then we also give an optimal algorithm of cost O(n|Lmin|), if the size n of the ring is known, and of cost O(n|Lmax|), if it is unknown. For arbitrary graphs, we show that rendezvous is feasible if an upper bound on the size of the graph is known and we give an optimal algorithm of cost O(D|Lmin|) if the topology of the graph and the initial positions are known to agents.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".